I have to ask wiyosaya, what is your political stance? I consider myself a centrist who leans right. It depends on the issues being discussed and I reserve the right to change my opinion based on what is presented and how it aligns with my own ideas.
That said, "In any event, that gagme employees were doxed and their home addresses given out by places like Briebart speaks to the ideology of that side of the political spectrum. In other words, Briebart in as much said "if you won't accept what we said as truth, we will ram it down your throats in any manner we deem appropriate even if it puts people in mortal danger."
Yet this memo was released to the public and the author's full name was outed. You seem to think it's okay for "gagme" employees to release the memo and who wrote it, but it's not okay for a news outlet to post names of those who criticized the author, when they were taken from social media. Yet those same people most likely contributed to this mans firing.
I think we get the point that you disagree with the memo as not being scientific and that is fine. I haven't even read the damn thing. I care about the topic because it is obvious Google's diversity is a fallacy and this person was right about it. This can happen to anyone who has a different opinion to the "left" where the "left" is the majority in any company. People should keep their feelings and their political opinions out of business.
The Military had a saying while I was in. No politics, no religion and no sexual discussions while in the work place. People get offended too easily.
Sounds like a great policy, to me!
I really don't think my political viewpoint has any relevance to this. Why? Because political views are so polarized these days it is nearly impossible to discuss things openly and freely. In many instances, each side is completely dismissive of the other, and in that case, there is no room for reasonable discourse. Neither side, IMO, is better than the other. Both sides exhibit extremism, and as I see it, extremism, no matter what name it uses, is the real problem.
As to his memo being released, I never said that I condoned its release. However, I see that as his responsibility. He wrote it, he distributed it via e-mail to his choice of recipients, and in all such transactions, there is the real possibility that it will go far beyond its intended audience. Do we know whether he said in the e-mail where he sent the memo, please do not distribute this?
By contrast, if the employees that Briebart outed and published their home addresses had published that info themselves, willingly, say, to promote open discussion about the issue, then that would be a different story.
But, as I see it, what Briebart has done is essentially commit an act that is perhaps just short of terrorism with the net effect of intimidation of the gagme employees. And, apparently, they did this in response to the fact that this guy, who admits that his political views are biased to the right, was fired from a company that had every right to do so. It was my mistake to make a generalization of Briebart as a voice of all on the right when where, IMO, Briebart's action lies is squarely in the realm of extremism, if not terrorism.
In pretty much all of my posts I refer to google as gagme because I personally do not agree with their business practices. However, it is not news that employee base of gagme is not diversified. The following links make that quite obvious:
http://time.com/3904408/google-workplace-diversity/
http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/29/technology/google-diversity-report/index.html
As someone with a foundation in science, if anyone tries to make a scientific argument that has no scientific foundation, am I supposed to accept that because the entity making the argument believes that they are correct? The entity making the scientific argument, as in all of mainstream science, is responsible for providing scientific evidence to support their claims whether that evidence be in the form of references to published papers, or, their own evidence from a scientific study of the topic. He had neither of these on the issue of biological differences as the basis of the lack of diversity. If he did have references, he cherry-picked them to support his view. Unfortunately, I cannot find the quote about it, but there is a great quote on scientific integrity that basically says that the researcher must question their own conclusions and consider that they may be wrong. Frankly, if he had done his research, he would have found that there was at the best, no consensus on biological differences, at worst, that it is, as in my quote above, routinely warned against as fundamentally unscientific.
So what side am I on? I am on the side of science. As I said before, it is unfortunate that he chose to base part of his argument on a position that is regarded as "fundamentally unscientific". IMO, had he left that out, he just might have ignited the conversation that he hoped he would.
